Distance Cooking Human Cells and Molecules – An Unenforced Crime or Not?

Wrote this a while ago, don’t have time to review it. Here’s the content:

Directional and Distance Considerations

Two decent ways to divide radiating devices, or antennas as they are commonly called, is based on how the energy exits the device and enters space.  Omnidirectional antennas transmit in numerous directions, while directional antenna’s transmit beams or thin cones in one main direction.

If a microwave’s 1,000 watt output, for example, were fed into an omnidirectional antenna, the energy would scatter away from the device into many directions.  Not much would get cooked this way, as microwaves normally contain the energy inside a box, repeatedly frying the insides in a repeating cycle of reused energy.  An omnidirectional antenna wouldn’t have such a high efficiency of energy use, with only objects near the omnidirectional microwave experiencing electron disturbances which might cause heating and cooking.

In contrast, if a Microwaves output were focused into a tight beam, then it could be possible to cook small areas of space fairly rapidly.  This danger would subside the further away the beam had to travel, but significantly more power would hit a much smaller space than with an omnidirectional antenna.  This type of device could possibly cause damage to flesh, brain matter, or other moist anatomical regions.  Further, if this beam were bounced at the same point in an infinite cycle, like the insides of a microwave box, then that a lot more energy would be transferred to that small point in space.

I would think this would be illegal also, but I think the geometry, technology, and methodologies would be beyond most regulators.

Costs of Evidence, Economic Opportunity Costs, and Selective Enforcement

The first assumption of probability in this section is that electronic radiation crimes are probable enough to have at least a small amount of effort put into allowing reports of them or investigating them.  The actual probability of electromagnetic attacks occurring on American civilians is completely unknown by me, completely unknown by the psychiatric industry, and not publicized by law enforcement from what I’ve been told.

The next assumption of probability is that the probability of catching electromagnetic waves in the air is as slim as a few nanometers in the worst cases.  But if the occurrences are great, and radiated waveforms cover large amounts of space, the chances of catching such an attack would be greater.

I have very little knowledge of statistics relating to crimes.  I would imagine most are fairly simple, and wouldn’t involve compromising the human anatomy with electromagnetic radiation, cooking thighs (or other more embarrassing parts) like chickens, or geometrically patterning reflective objects to provide an infinite beam of radiation to continue through a point in someone’s space.  But I have a small business sense, so I figured I’d consider what variables might be effecting these matters.

The first variable would be the cost of obtaining evidence.  To get evidence of a battery via electromagnetic radiation would be far different from checking someone’s knuckles and bootprints.  Internal organs don’t provide much visual evidence of cooking, and most symptoms people could describe could easily describe other causes or disorders.  There may be some tricks of medical science that could produce some kind of objective results, although these would be expensive, and I am not personally aware of any of them.

The reportable effects of electromagnetic attacks would probably vary, as every square nanometer of a human body generally has different cells, functions, and material.  Further, nervous system functions, brain functions, etc have different timing and modes, so attack symptoms would likely vary based on physiological cycles and electrical signals.  So many symptoms of directed radiation would vary from individual to individual, vary based on where a successful attack occurred, and vary based on physics specifics such as frequency, amplitude, and reflective environment.  Personal factors such as recent diet, brain, etc would also affect end results.  And electromagnetic radiation can be varied in dimension, amplitude, frequency, and other factors as easily as a box can be dragged around a computer interface, so it is likely attacks could precisely target specific functions, or even stealth attacks could be designed to go unnoticed by the individual until a later time.

Proving that electrons are excited within the body would be fairly difficult to say the least.  The best way would be to use an antenna to measure air in an area.  Various electronic tools such as spectrum analyzers and oscilloscopes exist for these types of measurements.  The problem then is, even if a person has a tool, they are not measuring the air around their entire body, but only a small space of air.  Rays can be as thin as hundreds of nanometers in the case of something like UV-C, even thinner if the frequency is raised.  And as electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light, any beams could be shut off or moved via computer or human operators faster than a hand held measuring antenna can reach a beam.  So even these advanced tools would do nothing for the tightly beamed types of energy, which coincidentally would be the most effective at concealing a high energy transfer into precise regions of a person’s anatomy.

Some environments can be hardened against electromagnetic attacks, but the cost is usually great.  Most buildings don’t have any sort of protection.

So if the perfect crime was committed, a victim might not feel it, but might still be damaged.  The highest percentage of victims wouldn’t know how to measure for the energy, and an even higher percentage would be unsuccessful in getting a legitimate measurement.

Judging from television shows and general propaganda, one would assume something like this would be the big mystery of the modern day.  With police cars outfitted with fancy full spectrum measurement tools to detect anything wrong with the electrons in the air.  I’m learning this might not be the case, as tools would be costly.  Further, having these capabilities would require law enforcement personnel to be trained to somehow find these invisible problems.  This wouldn’t require too much training for general awareness, but would certainly require time to perform even a general search of various areas.  And if this became common practice, no one would choose to radiate at or near the police cars or police for fear of getting caught and prosecuted.

So once again, there is a very small chance of finding any energy, and determining the source can also be difficult.  As energy can bounce around thousands of times before reaching a point, multiple measurements would have to enable tracing a signal to an energy source.  Next to impossible considering even high power sources can be small, and enormous amplitudes can be bounced off common objects like car and RVs.  As cars in traffic change position constantly, a cars position at the time of radiation would have to be known to determine reflectivity.

And like the bird example with the light, even incineration levels of energy can be travelling through the air in one direction without giving large indications in other directions.

So obviously, the slickest electronic engineers could get away with a lot, and the cost to catch them would be extraordinary compared to the fraction of engineering cost to streamline attack methods and conceal them.  Since resources in the world are limited, my guess is trying to track such engineers would be greatly limited by resources, and other, easier to catch crimes would be the ones dealt with more often.

My Reasons for this Analysis

Although my main problems happen to be regarding a different form of energy (ultrasound), electronic radiation has been brought up with numerous torture and harassment tactics.  I have the perception that law enforcement will generally tell everyone that there is no possibility of electron disturbances being the cause of a perceived problem.  People complaining of potential electron disturbances are instead to focus the discussion on a small three dimension space in between their ears where dopamine and other mood forming chemicals are made and consumed.  I have been ushered towards another topic, mental illness instead of physics and self-defense.

I have attempted to discuss my questions and concerns on the physics based matters, but the conversation was continually directed towards other disciplines of study, such as psychiatry, psychology, personal physical and mental health.  The points discussed turned out to be worthwhile discussions, and educational, but I was unable to establish even two physics vocabulary terms on which to base a discussion.

The conclusion was reached that reports on disturbances, with or without any sort of mathematical, observational, theoretical, or test equipment based evidence, was forbidden.  And further calls would likely earn a reporter the reputation of some sort of nutcase based on previous dealings with other callers.  I figured this was more of a concern over the costs attributable to discussion time, etc, but also was concerned that entire fields of study were wide open rampant crime due to organizational stereotypes that eliminate known physics properties from investigations.  I also figured to actually communicate effectively some sort of credibility would have to be built, and so have started documentation.

I’m also of the belief that protecting those who direct radiation at people, or directing radiation at people itself, is a serious invasion of their constitutional and human rights, and severe violations of both the spirit and letter of the law.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s